I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I think Obama is forcing a House vote on a Syrian strike because 1) it's a lose-lose for anyone running for House in 2014 so it's like a big middle finger to Congress and the House in particular, 2) he doesn't really want to invade Syria and needs a way to back out, and 3) he doesn't want to be impeached.

Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It is telling that we don't get to see/hear the evidence. At least Colin Powell waved yellowcake around.

LasersHurt:Is it just me, or are some of these regional powers completely and totally unaware of how farked they'd be if they started a major war?

It's either that they're completely ignorant of their own capabilities and those of others, OR they know and are using rhetoric in the hopes it never comes to that.

It's hard to say how much understanding they do have. On the one hand it's obvious that the full might of a modern superpower could swat them like a fly there are several reasons why they might not consider this a real threat.

1) Western nations are very squeamish about letting their soldiers do their jobs. They impose ROE and missions that hamstring their armed forces and cause unnecessary casualties on their own soldiers. We also tend to get upset about any of our soldiers who die in combat and are easily fatigued by this.

2) Recent history of mismanaged conflicts points to the fact the barely literate and poorly trained insurgents can inflict damage on a western military. Sure that damage is usually at the expense of many more insurgent lives but see point one about why it's worth it for their leaders. When they lose soldier they are 'martyrs' for the cause and everyone is happy. When a national guardsman with a wife and two kids gets killed we are demoralized.

3)It's possible that these leaders have sycophant military "advisers" who tell them that they can stand toe to toe with the west and they don't have enough outside experience to know that they are being lied to.

4)They really haven't seen the full capabilities of a fully modern military because none of the recent conflicts have warranted anything other than cold war era hardware.

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Then he should prepare for negotiations with the rebels. Ultimately, he's the guy that holds the keys here.

Shadowe:I'm with Abe Vigoda's Ghost on this one, Smitty's got it completely ass-backwards... if anything it sounds like Assad is asking people not to destabilize the situation any further, not threatening to do so himself.

Abe Vigoda's Ghost:"Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

bdub77:Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

I doubt it would even be as much as a no-fly. We're talking cruise missiles aimed at sites (relatively easy), nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table.

People are getting their panties wadded because they're afraid this is going to be Iraq War 2: Chemical Boogaloo even though it's virtually nothing like that situation. Syria has been known to have chems for a long time, has publicly stated as much, has almost certainly used them and is in an unstable situation that could lead to their disbursement to people who are very keen on duck-boating one into an American harbor someday. Pretty much as opposite as you can get from Iraq circa 2003.

But, of course, 200,000,000 complete and utter imbeciles didn't bother to think about anything for more than 911 seconds a decade ago and dumbly cheered George Bush the Dumber into a quagmire while abandoning troops on the real battlefield in Afghanistan turning the entire U.S. involvement in the region into a complete and utter disaster, so now we have to swing completely in the opposite direction because somehow undergoing an extreme reversal on interventionism will make up for that clusterfark.../ tl;dr: Americans are dumb as dirt and fickle as hell

durbnpoisn:Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "Someone who makes accusations needs proof," Assad said,"We challenged the U.S. and France to show us proof. Mr. Obama and Hollande were incapable even when asked to do so by their own peoples."

"Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes, chaos and extremism will be widespread. The risk of a regional war exists."

He actually sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There does seem something very strange about this. Obama (or his people) keeps saying , "We have incontravertable proof". Yet, other than pictures of a bunch of bodies that could be from anywhere, or any time, there is no compelling evidence shown.

And what is Obama's justification for attack? "We told you not to gas you people, and you did. We will look like chumps if we don't punish you for it."

Setting all of that up, it sort of does make sense that Obama backed down. And in doing so, it now gives Syria, and the rest of the world, cause to make it appear that Obama was bluffing. That, in itself, makes the US look like even bigger chumps.

So, seriously, WTF is really going on here?

Justification? Chemical Weapons have been used. Do you grasp the significance of that?

skozlaw:bdub77: Let's be perfectly honest, I really don't want to go to war. The only thing I'd be willing to stomach is maybe a no-fly zone set up and some drone strikes on chemical weapons capabilities, and that's it.

I doubt it would even be as much as a no-fly. We're talking cruise missiles aimed at sites (relatively easy), nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table.

People are getting their panties wadded because they're afraid this is going to be Iraq War 2: Chemical Boogaloo even though it's virtually nothing like that situation. Syria has been known to have chems for a long time, has publicly stated as much, has almost certainly used them and is in an unstable situation that could lead to their disbursement to people who are very keen on duck-boating one into an American harbor someday. Pretty much as opposite as you can get from Iraq circa 2003.

But, of course, 200,000,000 complete and utter imbeciles didn't bother to think about anything for more than 911 seconds a decade ago and dumbly cheered George Bush the Dumber into a quagmire while abandoning troops on the real battlefield in Afghanistan turning the entire U.S. involvement in the region into a complete and utter disaster, so now we have to swing completely in the opposite direction because somehow undergoing an extreme reversal on interventionism will make up for that clusterfark.../ tl;dr: Americans are dumb as dirt and fickle as hell

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

snocone:Starting to leave a short list of the Arab nations we have not "liberated all to hell".

A very short list.Whatever will we do next?

... dude, there's two or three. Depends on whether you count Kuwait as "liberated all to hell" and whether or not you call Afghanistan "the Middle East". Iraq makes the list as the only definitive one.

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

If you are still burning $4 gas in your car, it apparently, went very well, all in all.

skozlaw:nobody is even talking about the possibility of aiming at people (relatively hard) or trying to influence the outcome of this thing to our liking (extremely hard) beyond keeping the use of WMDs off the table

This is really not true, though. They had a former general (Jack Keane) on BBC today talking about just that (talking about actions that would try to influence the outcome to this thing to our liking, but at the same time saying the US wouldn't do that - it was basically high level bullsh*t).

There will always be some war hawks. Whether or not Obama is seriously considering that is a different matter.